Advanced Class Guide

Cheapy wrote:

There's already a guide to making monsters too...It's Table 1-1 of the bestiary's appendix.

Trash, also might be a good idea to have Paizo follow their own guides. Check all the values on the CR 1 listing vs actual CR 1 monsters - almost none of them match.

But no, we need more player focused books and classes.

I'd hesitate to call it trash. I've gotten some great mileage following the benchmarks they give, making some changes here and there if I want something a bit more out of a monster. While I agree that it would be nice to have some more advice and such, I'd hardly call the guidelines in the bestiary trash.

Also, please, take the "too many player options" potshots elsewhere. So over that now.

It concerns me greatly that I have not heard of a single concept in this blog (or even in the entirety of this thread) that isn't already represented quite well by a prestige class, archetype, or multiclass build. Is no one else concerned about the immense overlap that is bound to occur? The book isn't even out yet and we already have redundant naming conventions. -_-

The concept the magus has was already potentially represented by a fighter/wizard multiclass and/or Eldritch Knight. Yet the end result was something unique and mechanically interesting. Let's wait until the play test before coming to any conclusions.

Swashbuckler = Normally just fine, but there is an archetype by that name. To avoid confusion consider buccaneer.

Agreed, however there's already a buccaneer archetype for bards.

I'm really looking forward to comparing the Warpriest with my Cleric (Crusader).

Because clerics. Woot!

Swashbuckler = Human Gunslinger Archetype / Rogue Archetype / 3rd Party Class
Buccaneer = Bard Archetype
Corsair = Fighter Archetype
Sea Reaver = Barbarian Archetype
Freebooter = Ranger Archetype
Smuggler = Rogue Archetype
Pirate = Rogue Archetype

What about sharing a name? Swashbuckler is used by TWO separate archetypes from two totally different classes.

I think archetypes were a great way to re-flavor existing classes with (usually) a minimum of change. This sounds like class-bloat to me.

I am not really interested.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

There's already a guide to making monsters too...It's Table 1-1 of the bestiary's appendix.

Trash, also might be a good idea to have Paizo follow their own guides. Check all the values on the CR 1 listing vs actual CR 1 monsters - almost none of them match.

But no, we need more player focused books and classes.

I'd hesitate to call it trash. I've gotten some great mileage following the benchmarks they give, making some changes here and there if I want something a bit more out of a monster. While I agree that it would be nice to have some more advice and such, I'd hardly call the guidelines in the bestiary trash.

Also, please, take the "too many player options" potshots elsewhere. So over that now.

Well, we can agree to disagree then - the lack of templates, rules on making focused monsters (just add class levels - yay!) and making new monsters or abilities are minimal at best. Same goes with templates and template support.

Also, if people are going to deride DM support tools them I am going to deride more player guides.

And by Cheapy's logic - "there's already a guide to making characters fit your need .....It's in the Core rulebook, APG, UM and UC where they cover multi-classing and using archetypes". See how easy that was?

I actually don't really care about new players books, players like new things - I get it. Just would like a little more core rules (not campaign) support for the other side of the screen.

OoO.. interesting... I'm curious to see the see what the other four classes are going to be hybrids of.

I'd be interested in what, if any, hybrid is done with the bard. I'd love to see a bard/alchemist class, similar to the Athasian bard from Dark Sun.

Odraude wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

There's already a guide to making monsters too...It's Table 1-1 of the bestiary's appendix.

Trash, also might be a good idea to have Paizo follow their own guides. Check all the values on the CR 1 listing vs actual CR 1 monsters - almost none of them match.

But no, we need more player focused books and classes.

I'd hesitate to call it trash. I've gotten some great mileage following the benchmarks they give, making some changes here and there if I want something a bit more out of a monster. While I agree that it would be nice to have some more advice and such, I'd hardly call the guidelines in the bestiary trash.

Also, please, take the "too many player options" potshots elsewhere. So over that now.

Well, we can agree to disagree then - the lack of templates, rules on making focused monsters (just add class levels - yay!) and making new monsters or abilities are minimal at best. Same goes with templates and template support.

Also, if people are going to deride DM support tools them I am going to deride more player guides.

And by Cheapy's logic - "there's already a guide to making characters fit your need .....It's in the Core rulebook, APG, UM and UC where they cover multi-classing and using archetypes". See how easy that was?

I actually don't really care about new players books, players like new things - I get it. Just would like a little more core rules (not campaign) support for the other side of the screen.

No one here is deriding GM focused books. Like, at all. If anything, I do agree that more options to change monsters and build monster abilities would be awesome. Currently, I have other monsters in the Bestiaries to eyeball it. But some advice would, of course, always be awesome.

However, this isn't a book about monsters. This is a book about classes, with an entire section on building advice for making your own classes as a GM. Which, to me, is a great tool as a GM to make thematic classes that fit a setting. I'll be honest. I don't think forcing point-buy systems into a game system that doesn't use it works. Hell, having played other point-buy systems, I'm not really convinced that they are more balanced. It's easy to abuse and combine abilities into something that's stronger than the current options, and in a way, it is severely limiting in what abilities you can implant into your class.

That's why I'm glad to see that instead, they are going with advice on such mechanics, so that all the classes aren't cookie-cutter or completely broken, and instead, giving the knowledge to GM to gauge the levels of original mechanics that they are designing. Which to me, the "behind the curtain" aspect of this and building spells in Ultimate Magic are more valuable than a point buy system like, say, the race builder or magic item creation rules. As much as I like them and use them often, I still keep a keen eye on the abilities that are clearly worth more than they are priced. Which is the very nature of point buy systems. I've learned that enough times playing years of HERO 4th, 5th, and 6th.

And I'll take a book on mechanical advice for GMs any day. And I'll be using this advice to make my Nomad class better.

My kingdom for a balanced and official warmage class. I long for a magus-like class that fights on the other side of the fence, blasting with spells with the brains of a master tactician.

When I checked the newest post, I was very confused when I saw my avatar...

benthic wrote:

My kingdom for a balanced and official warmage class. I long for a magus-like class that fights on the other side of the fence, blasting with spells with the brains of a master tactician.

Wizards get knowledge geography, history, nobility, engineering and there is the siege archetype. Sorcerers don't get the Wizardly knowledge but have the Cha and spells to lead people into battle.

Both styles are official, nothing like the magus and do what you asked for, in different ways.

I can see what you mean about a sort of cavalier/bard/sorcerer though, a guy who directs battles.

Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works.

Thanks gods!

When I checked the newest post, I was very confused when I saw my avatar...

The akatas are breeding.

I like new toys(classes). I like fresh air, even if going for a walk in the same neighborhood(same old class features), I can walk down a different than usual street. I soarely miss old 3.5 features like maneuvers/Incarnum/psionics. If new features like the magus arcane pool are the closest thing I can get to them, I will gladly review and consider them. Worse comes to worse, I can reject using them myself.

I have very high standards and doubt I will want to play more than 2 or 3 of these. Even those, I suspect they will leave me less than impressed, but I will strongly consider playing them because I am getting sick of reclycling similar characters in PFS. Slow progression xp is not the solution, tried it and it is not sufficient enough. This means I will try them out to at least try something different. Something that I have not disdained for so long, like with most of the classes(even with archetypes reviewed). Even the cleric, Inquisitor, paladin and magus, disapoint me with my level if standards. Even tough I look forwArd to the bloodrager & warpriest.

I am sure many players who cannot be bothered to.learn magic are looking forward to the classes I am not. Just as much as I am hopeful for the blood rager and warpriest. I am still very much looking forward to this book.

I think people should wait for the playtest before they start complaining how "uninspired" hybrid classes are going to be. The classes obviously are going to use new mechanics in many instances, so they will be more than just simple multiclass characters.

I am fully aware they are going to use new mechanics. Since I know none of them, I just simply guess at how they will attempt to construct the classes with what is already in my "plates".

I am very curious how they want to push them. As each combination needs tender care to avoid being OP. If it is going to be a "potluck" worth of class abilities and a few new mechanics, I doubt any of the new classes will be UP as each offers a little more to the other to make it better.

Everything is sounding pretty good on this so far.

Unfortunately it has neither of the classes I'd hope to see come out.

1) A base class Rogue/Sorcerer or Rogue/Wizard instead of having to dip both a rogue/ninja class and a wiz/sorc class to later take the Arcane Trickster prestige class. If only they'd make a slightly weaker arcane stealther right out of the box I'd be so much happier.

2) I'd also like to see a re-worked version of the Runepriest (Maybe call it a Runelord) that plays much like a Warlock from Dark Age of Camelot mmorpg back in the day. Make the class have a limited spell list, they gain all metamagics through level progression, spells take a full-round action to cast normally, but they can "queue" up spells that float around their head like Ioun stones which they can release as possibly a free or swift action.

As a Runelord levels they'd get a total pool of Rune Points which they can spend on spells (higher level spells cost more RP's) and can spend 1 RP (Maybe 2) to add a Metamagic to that spell. It takes 5-10mins for the spell to cast and then floats around their head and it has a rune inscription (and maybe specific color) that others can see which hints what "school" of magic the queued spell is.

By level 20 a Runelord could have 3-4 spells queued. Depending on Archetype, the player can focus on Healing, Offensive damage, or Buffing/Debuffing. They can free/swift action dump a ton of damage, or heals, or buffs/debuffs whenever they decide but after those are gone they're just a weaker version of a wizard with their reduced spell list, reduced spells per day, and longer casting time (full-round action). This would also be an non race restricted class unlike the crappy Runepriest version in the ARG.

If that class setup would be too overpowered for a Runelord I'd rather see a class that can have x amount of persistent auras they can cast per a day on themselves or party members to provide "daily" buffs or buffs till they canceled them. (They'd have a selection of spells to use as auras and could only have so many going at 1 time obviously.)

Maybe some day Pathfinder will make a few classes like these. Until then I'll just sigh and hold my money.

Well there are still 4 unreleased classes left. Though I think the first one is more likely than the second one.

I'm... on the fence. A lot of these do sound interesting, and the magus did pull off the old and notorious fighter/wizard hybrid very well, so there's some precedent.

But one of my favorite things about PF as a system is that the archetypes allow the handful of "vanilla" classes to cover a wide range of concepts, even by combining elements from other classes sometimes. Unlike in 3.5, you don't need a special scout class (for example) when you can just tweak a ranger or rogue to fit the niche. In fact, I'd argue that the ninja and samurai should have just been meaty rogue and cavalier archetypes, but that's behind us now.

Furthermore, a lot of these concepts were already very close together. Rangers were already pretty similar to druids and rogues, and "battle clerics" have never been very hard to make. The magus works so well because wizards and fighters have virtually no overlap, so combining them creates something very new. From what we've seen, the battlerager is probably closest to this formula, and I'm actually pretty interested in seeing it. The barbarian and the sorcerer are already like dumber, flashier cousins to the fighter and wizard.

ALL THAT SAID, I'm interested in all the other material this book offers, even if I'm not guaranteed to buy it (or let my players use some of these hybrids if I'm feeling really curmudgeony). If there's one thing I'm always grateful for, it's the online reference document.

Very well said, and I completely agree. I would like to add a thought or two of my own:

1) On the one hand, I can see why this sort of book could improve the game. After all, playing multiple classes is fun, and with existing Pathfinder rule, multiclassing is... difficult. Since each class is built around a scaling mechanic, splitting your advancement into another class usually meant you were a more flexible character, but you were never quite as powerful as someone who just stuck to her starting class. In addition, sometimes you only wanted SOME of the features of a certain class, but found yourself getting plenty more that you don't want and are actually disruptive to the kind of character you are trying to build. For example, multi classing a martial class into a ranger would mean you'll get spells, even though you want your character to be an awesome fighter with a cool animal companion and nothing supernatural.
So part of what this books enables is easier, better multi classing, which is not bad.

2) However... I find myself LIKING the fact that multi classing is hard. It's kind of fun to envision a character, and then seat around with seven rulebooks open around me, trying to figure out the exact combination of classes and feats to get the character concept done. Something the lead designer of MTG likes saying i "limitation breed creativity". The harder multiclassing is, the more special it is. Which leads me to my next point...

3)I feel multiclassing has to be more special. The core 11 classes cover such a wide array of concepts the if multiclassing happens I feel it should be justified. Call me a stuffy old fossil, but I like my D&D games to mostly be about ranger and monks and fighters and wizards and clerics. I get that people like the new options, and they are mostly pretty neat, but honestly I think they are played too much. I don't want to wake up one day and realize that the PCs in my gaming group are an alcehmist Tengu, a tiefling warpriest/hunter, a dahmpir magus and a human barbarian (one of my players always plays a human barbarian).
Potentially, those new classes might entirely nullify the core classes. Why would anyone play JUST a barbarian when you can have a barbarian with a bloodline? why ever play a rouge when you can play a slayer? etc.

4) One last tidbit - the description of the hunter is :" ... the hunter is never without her trusted animal companion, hunting down foes with lethal accuracy."
That...sounds exactly like a description of a ranger, to me...

Yeah a Runelord would take a decent amount of time to balance out and get just right. It's also pretty unique as it would deal with queue'ing spells that don't count towards spells per day and etc.

It would add a ton of flavor as players or npc's would be walking around with runes floating around them heads which would either help their allies ingame know their Runelord friend has spells ready or enemies would know a person was a Runelord that had conjuration spells queued up or whatnot (if they succeeding in a knowledge check).

I think it would definitely be a class that provided quite a bit of flavor. Could also have Archetypes that focus on few spells queued up (1-2) but really powerful or an archetype that focuses on like 4 spells of lower level queued up. Essentially this could be accomplished with the base class though since a Runelord would have only so many points and could spell them how he/she wished. Either focusing on having a few really strong spells or many weaker lower spells like heals or etc.

Man I wish there was a class like that.....

Rogue+Wizard or Sorcerer
better be in there as it would be an obvious fit.

I would be surprised if there was no Monk (Drunken Master) + Barbarian (Drunken Brute) mix up for a hybrid class based around getting wasted to become a really great Bar Brawler.

Actually as far as I know the Ninja and Samurai are both as you suggested Rogue and Calavier archetypes....

I'm looking at Ultimate Combat and it states for Ninja

The ninja is an alternate class for the rogue core class

also

The samurai is an alternate class for the cavalier base class.

Gunslingers have no such wording and I'm not completely sure of the verdict but I've seen quite a few people argue that Ninja and Samurai are just Archetypes and not their own class.

Edit: They do have their own progression but I'm just saying that the above wording leaves it open for some debate.

Regarding multiclassing, I find it a bit tedious and sometimes too out of character for someone to be hopping from Paladin to Rogue to Fighter. It seems to present that someone gave up forgoing their training in Paladin to learn to be a rogue where there may be a class that would focus on both aspects at once. Multiclassing is good but it seems that the powergamers tend to multiclass more than other because they want to dip this or that.

No, they're alternate classes. That's different than an archetype

^
As they are more in depth changes that might as well have been their own classes respectively. In fact the Samurai has its own archetype, Swordsaint. Ninja does not have its own archetype. Antipaladin also has its own archetype, Knight of the Sepulcher. All three are also on the same scale as they are similar to one class but being its own class in its own different way. The difference between that and an archetype, is usually a few things like 0-4 things usually get changed in an archetype, an alternate class is one that is similar but has been more heavily changed when compared to its counterpart.

But we didn't get what we asked for is the point. We got very narrow classes that have clunky, confusing mechanics with synergies that effect what can be added to the rest of the game and that don't do the things we asked unless you accept the mechanics never asked for.

What was asked for was a hybrid fighter caster. That is a broad brush class that kind of existed through Eldrich Knight, but kind of didn't because of how hard it was to get there.

The Magus fills a narrow niche of that request when if they hadn't added odd mechanics and had just made a hybrid it wouldn't be so narrow.

Same with the gunslinger.

I don't want new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics in the same way I don't want new classes for the sake of new classes.

I do want hybrid class options, as described. And my opinion if you make those hybrid classes I can do more things with them than I could with a narrow class built around a new mechanic that may or may not fit into the system without a crowbar.

I'm glad this book isn't about what you want, it honestly sounds quite boring.

Personally, I liked the new mechanics for the magus, both as a player AND a gm. It didn't bog things down in the least, my less rules-interested players doesn't touch it and the ones that do have made it work quite well with the group.
As a gm I like the way the magus can add some much-needed fighting power to an otherwise squishy caster bad guy. My only problem with the magus is the spell list being too loaded for damage, and we solved that by giving him access to the wizard list.

As for these new classes; well, I have been a grouch about new classes in the past, but I've realised how stupid that is. This is a game for all of us, not just for me, so I will stay open minded about this.

And in all honesty; I squee'ed in a very unmanly fashion when I read the first posts about this book ;)

The play-test hasn't started yet and I'm already concerned.

The bloodrager (despite the name) is something I really want to play, but my concern is in how MAD is this class going to be. Right now I can see str., dex., con., & cha., all being important to the class. Frankly four ability scores seems a bit much (like the poor monk). I would rather it really mostly on just strength and charisma. Unless they go down a finesse based route, which I hope to they don't like 90% of the magus builds out there are finesse based already. Not to mention I'm just tired of finesse based warrior/mage builds (no offense to anyone who like them), but this class just screams high strength.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

squee! new toys! ... in a year...

I wonder how this will work with some of the Mythic abilities. Like will mythic hexes work for the Shaman, or will mythic bloodline work for the bloodrager? I'd expect they would, but I'm not sure.

Panache!

The journey has come to an end; who wouldn't wanna play a class with this built in as aclass feature, and ongoing not-dispellable effect!

Panache... moves away, inwardly humming to himself

SWASHBUCKLER!!!!!
Hot diggity dang!!!!

I hadn't thought of that, Zombie Ninja. Bein primarily duel-role classes, won't many of these new classes end up being quite MAD?

I really hope these classes are better then they sound. Because other then then the Swashbuckler, none of then fill any niche I have been looking for, that is of course that the Swashbuckler is a dex based fighter that works.

I would really like to see....

1)Psychic based classes such as a psychic mage(Mystic or Psychic), psychic warrior, psychic sorcerer(Esper) but that isn't going to happen in this book. The Psychic/Mystic would be an int based prepared spell caster, the Esper would be cha based spontaneous caster, and the Psychic Warrior would be like the magus but uses it's psychic abilities to enhance it's combat ability.

2)Beastmaster- Fighter type class with no spellcaster that focuses on animal companion but can get magical beast companion or make there animal into a magical beast. Maybe the Beast master can monster traits as well like energy resistance, disease/poison resistance/immunity, etc.

3)Tarzan/Jungle Girl- Type class that has 10HD, Fighter BA, fort/ref good saves, 4-6 skill points/level, primitive weapon selection, no armor but monk like AC but cha instead of wis, favored terrain bonuses but more specialized based on the terrain they were raised from, wild empathy, some unarmed combat ability, animal companion optional. So maybe a Ranger+Monk.

4)A shapeshifting- Class with no spell casting and fighter HD/BA and can change into anything based on there level of course. So maybe a Fighter+Druid.

5)Engineer/Inventor- Class that uses gadgets(like edger from FFVI), bombs, guns, and makes constructs(clockworks or robots). So maybe a Alchemist+Gunslinger

6)Shaman- A spontaneous cha based caster that uses the Druid spell list and picks a totem animal(eagle, bear, fox, wolf, etc.) instead of bloodline/mystery. So maybe a Druid+Oracle.

7)A class that is like the sorcerer but more martial. So basically a 8HD, cleric BA, two good saves class that focuses completely on a sorcerer bloodline gaining a lot abilities while focusing on one creature chosen at creation. The creatures I would like to see most to start with would be dragon, fey, celestial, fiend, alien(starsoul), aberration, magical beast(of some kind), protean, undead/vampire, and plant. You select from a list of abilities(10-15) per bloodline like the oracle. You could also gain more through a feat like the oracle.

I would love to see unarmored rules for all classes with a monk like AC based on there highest mental stat.

Odraude wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

There's already a guide to making monsters too...It's Table 1-1 of the bestiary's appendix.

Trash, also might be a good idea to have Paizo follow their own guides. Check all the values on the CR 1 listing vs actual CR 1 monsters - almost none of them match.

But no, we need more player focused books and classes.

I'd hesitate to call it trash. I've gotten some great mileage following the benchmarks they give, making some changes here and there if I want something a bit more out of a monster. While I agree that it would be nice to have some more advice and such, I'd hardly call the guidelines in the bestiary trash.

Also, please, take the "too many player options" potshots elsewhere. So over that now.

Well, we can agree to disagree then - the lack of templates, rules on making focused monsters (just add class levels - yay!) and making new monsters or abilities are minimal at best. Same goes with templates and template support.

Also, if people are going to deride DM support tools them I am going to deride more player guides.

And by Cheapy's logic - "there's already a guide to making characters fit your need .....It's in the Core rulebook, APG, UM and UC where they cover multi-classing and using archetypes". See how easy that was?

I actually don't really care about new players books, players like new things - I get it. Just would like a little more core rules (not campaign) support for the other side of the screen.

The difference is that that table is what is used by every monster designer. Any 'system' that comes out is almost guaranteed to be just a rehash and simplification so that the subtleties of it are more apparent to new DMs. And that'd be great! But it doesn't change the fact that the Monster Creation Guide already exists for Pathfinder.

Templates? Would they affect the target stats for the creatures CR? No? +1 is the max, and that's pushing it.

Specializations? Don't hit the target numbers in some categories, and blow past 'em elsewhere. The guide actually already says that.

New monster abilities? Keep them balanced and if they push the numbers too high, raise the CR.

There won't be a new system made to erase this one that has served well for 4 years. At best it will be a refinement of the already existing system.

No, they're alternate classes. That's different than an archetype

The only difference between the two is that one gets a full class writeup, and the other doesn't. They are the same otherwise.

Gunslinger is not an alternative class anymore, although at onepoint it was.

I'd love to see a Summoner / Divine class roll out. You could plit the summoner either way (summon Monster & Casting or the Eidolon) and I'd be happy.

Echoing a lot of the community out there. I think I'd be happier to see blends of two classes as they stand now instead of new mechanics for each hybrid.

No matter what they do, I'll be happy to see what they roll out in playtest in a few months.

Ten new base classes. Ten.

I think the bloat just went too far for me.

I seriously don't know what got people all up in arms over bloat. 3.5 had way more base classes than we'll have after this book has come out and so far I have no problem keeping the material from the hardcovers straight. Hell, if I go by my group of RP veterans, some new base classes is exactly what they need. I am already getting complaints of "I've played it all before".

Cheapy wrote:

Is the Hunter basically the Nature Warden, The Base Class?

I can't help wondering if (following how the magus is EK as a base class) the four unannounced hybrids might include base class versions of Mystic Theurge, Arcane Archer, and Arcane Trickster (and one other).

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

Every other month someone starts a thread asking how to build a good Mystic Theurge. The answers are consistently discouraging.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation. If they name the class the Warlock/Warloghe/Wærloga, then they will have killed 2 giants with one boulder!

Since multiclassing is painful, I also hope the Arcane Trickster and Arcane Archer are based classed as well. (Maybe as the Prankster and the Arrowspell?)

Idle thought: James Jacobs has already suggested he'd rather see the Summoner tied down to existing outsiders, closer to an animal companion mechanic. If they run a Cleric / Summoner in this book it might be a sneaky way to refine the concept in(long advance) preparation for a distant PF 2.0 where the old summoner gets dropped entirely.

Jason is keeping under wraps the 'Hedgehog' base class, which is all about slamming into people to damage them with your armor spikes, shield spikes, helmet spikes, boot spikes, gauntlet spikes and codpiece spikes.

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge. A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

scary harpy wrote:

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I hope you are familiar with the SGG magister? It fills a fairly similar space, I would be interested to see how this class compares.

I'm definitely looking forward to the bloodrager. While my current character wasn't built with that idea in mind (barb/sorcerer multiclass, ugh, total crap) it really sounds like a cool option for my character. I've gotten my GM to allow me to playtest the class once it comes out so I'm hoping it'll be soon.

Marc Radle wrote:

scary harpy wrote:

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I hope you are familiar with the SGG magister? It fills a fairly similar space, I would be interested to see how this class compares.

Similar design space but quite different in approach :)

All I'm asking is to get this kind of class:
- Medium BAB
- arcane spellcasting from 0 level to 9th level.

A.K.A., the cleric version of a sorcerer/wizard. Don't give me the "you have the bard and magus" argument, because they don't go to 9th level. In fact, I was hoping that the magus would have gotten a condensed spell list so it could have gotten a certain spell called Polar Ray, but no, it's 6th-level spells only. The bard got it lucky by having some 7th, 8th and 9th level spells as 6th-level spells.

So yeah, I don't care how strong it can end up or how much work it would take to make it balanced, I want a cleric-like class that can cast arcane spells up to 9th level with a medium BAB. I'm honestly sick of getting arcane spellcasting classes that are either too frail to fight (seriously, if a sorcerer, a wizard or a witch ends up in melee, it's game over.) or don't have access to the full level progression of spells.

All I'm asking is to get this kind of class:

- Medium BAB
- arcane spellcasting from 0 level to 9th level.

A.K.A., the cleric version of a sorcerer/wizard. Don't give me the "you have the bard and magus" argument, because they don't go to 9th level. In fact, I was hoping that the magus would have gotten a condensed spell list so it could have gotten a certain spell called Polar Ray, but no, it's 6th-level spells only. The bard got it lucky by having some 7th, 8th and 9th level spells as 6th-level spells.

So yeah, I don't care how strong it can end up or how much work it would take to make it balanced, I want a cleric-like class that can cast arcane spells up to 9th level with a medium BAB. I'm honestly sick of getting arcane spellcasting classes that are either too frail to fight (seriously, if a sorcerer, a wizard or a witch ends up in melee, it's game over.) or don't have access to the full level progression of spells.

Except the thing that makes it balanced is the fact that it doesnt have full progression spells. What you are asking for couldnt be balanced. Its not like the wizard and sorceror are loaded down with class features, their spells are POWERFUL. The only way to allow them to have the class features to mix in martial prowess and durability is to reduce that power. What you are asking for isnt a hybrid class, its a gestalt character.